이 연구는 올림픽을 앞두고 ‘1위 고아 수출국’이라는 외신 지적이 기사화된 1988년부터 ‘성덕 바우만’의 사연이 큰 화제를 불러일으킨 1990년대 후반까지 해외 입양 관련 주요 사건에서 한국과 ‘한민족’이라는 표상이 묘사된 방식을 살펴본다. 해외 입양의 방식을 통해 ‘국민’의 지위를 박탈시킨 과거, 외신의 지적과 함께 국내입양을 해외 입양의 해답으로 제시한 과정, 이후 유포된 해외 입양인의 귀환과 ‘뿌리찾기’ 서사에는 ‘선진국’의 위상을 둔 분투의 방식이 읽힌다. 이 과정에서 여러 책임 중 어떤 것이, 누구의, 어떤 성질의 문제로 정의되는가의 문제가 얽힌다. 추상적인 ‘선진국’과 ‘온정적 한민족’이라는 집단 이미지와 함께 해외 입양은 현재의 ‘국가’와 동떨어진 과거의 것으로, ‘기아 발생’의 책임은 ‘미혼모’ 집단으로 전가된다. 해외 입양인의 위기 극복 성장, 이해, 용서의 서사 역시 칭송의 형태를 통해 해결의 몫을 입양인 집단에 돌림으로써 각 개인의 책임을 강조한다.

This study examines the way Korea and Koreans were described in relation to the major events surrounding international adoption from 1988, when the country became internationally known as the “No. 1 orphan exporter” just before hosting the Olympics, and the late 1990s, when the story of Brian Sungduk Bauman became widely spread by the media. This historical examination of international adoptions reveals the past practice of stripping away citizenship, the process through which domestic adoption was proposed as the way to reduce international adoption after becoming known as the “No. 1 orphan exporter,” and how the popular narratives of returning international adoptees in search for their “roots” reflect Korea’s struggle to gain status as a “developed country.” This flow of events became intertwined with the problem of defining responsibilities, that is, who is responsible for which among the many issues and in which way. The emphasis on abstract images of Korea as a “developed country” with “compassionate Koreans” placed the international adoption issue as a bygone problem that is no longer a part of the current nation, shifting the responsibility for ’abandoned babies’ to their biological single mothers. Admiration and praises over the narratives of Korean adoptees overcoming difficulties and reconciliation with their past placed the burden to resolve the international adoption issue on individuals, again emphasizing the responsibility of individuals. The problem-solving pattern of relegating responsibility to individuals did not change. When the economic crisis narrative emerged in the IMF era, abortion became described immediately as an indispensable choice. The prioritization of individual responsibilities repeated once again in the name of becoming a “developed nation.”